Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Willie A. Key, Petitioner v. Medical University of South Carolina, et al.

No.

22 = 53

r

IN THE

hled

AUG 0 2 2022

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SpRem9-fcth|9lerk

PETITIONER,

WILLIE A. KEY,

vs

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

&

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

RESPONDENTS.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To the South Carolina Court of Appeals

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Willie A. Key

71 Society St., Apt. 501

Charleston, S.C. 29401

(843) 530-0284

Other Counsel of Record:

Vivian C. Fairbairn, Esq. (for MUSC)

22 WestEdge Street, Suite 300

Charleston, S.C. 29403

(843) 792-4063

RECEIVED

AUG - 8 2022

8UPREME!COURrLngK

1

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1.

Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred in refusing to file petitioner’s

complaint on the ground of lack ofjurisdiction?

2.

Whether the South Carolina Court of Appeals erred in refusing to hear

petitioner’s appeal on the ground of lack ofjurisdiction?

3.

Whether the Small Claims Court unfairly deprived appellant of his fifing fee?

11

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition

is as follows:

Medical University of South Carolina

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

RULE 29.6 STATEMENT

None of the petitioners is a nongovernmental corporation. None of the

petitioners have a parent corporation or shares held by a publicly traded company.

ILL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

6

CONCLUSION

9

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Decision of S.C. Court of Appeals

APPENDIX B

Decision of Court of Common Pleas

APPENDIX C

Decision of S.C. Supreme Court Denying Review

APPENDIX D

Decision of Small Claims Court for City of Charleston

APPENDIX E

Notice of Appeal to S.C. Court of Appeals

APPENDIX F

Denial of Motion to Reinstate

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE

CASES:

Proveaux v. Medical University of South Carolina. 326 S.C. 28;

482 S.E.2d 774 (1997)...................................................................

8

Jeter v. South Carolina Dept, of Transportation, 358 S.C. 528

(Ct. App. 2004)............................................................................

8

STATUTES:

S.C. Code Ann. §15-78-30(a);

6

S.C. Code Ann. §15-78-50(a);

6

S.C. Code Ann. §15-78- 100(b).

6

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment

below.

OPINIONS BELOW

(None of the Below Courts Ruled on the Merits of the Case)

The opinion of the highest state court, the Supreme Court of South Carolina,

to review the merits appears at Appendix C to the petition and is unpublished.

The opinion of the South Carolina Court of Appeals appears at Appendix A

to the Petition and is unpublished.

The opinion of the Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of

South Carolina, Charleston County appears at Appendix B to the Petition and is

unpublished.

The opinion of the Small Claims Court for Charleston County appears at

Appendix D and is unpublished.

I

JURISDICTION

The date on which the highest South Carolina court decided my case was

June 8, 2022. A copy of that decision appears at Appendix A.

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) and the

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

X

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably

to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution:

... No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws.

S.C. Code Ann. Sl5-78-30(al:

“Agency” means the individual office ... including a state-supported

governmental health care facility, school, college, university or technical college,

which employs the employee whose act or omission gives rise to a claim under this

chapter.

S.C. Code Ann. §15-78-50(al:

Any person who may suffer a loss proximately caused by a tort of the State,

any agency, a political subdivision, or a governmental entity, and its employee

acting within the scope of his official duty may file a claim as herein after provided.

S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78- 100(b).

Jurisdiction for any action brought under this chapter is in the circuit court

and brought in the county in which the act or omission occurred.

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case arose out of a dispute between petitioner and respondents where

petitioner was billed for services performed by respondent MUSC after being referred

to MUSC by respondent VA, pursuant to an agreed arrangement between the

respondents. Neither respondent claimed responsibihty for the erroneous billing,

leaving petitioner responsible for paying the bill.

On August 3, 2021 petitioner filed an action alleging NegHgence in the Court

of Common Pleas for the 9th Judicial Circuit (Charleston County) along with a Motion

and Affidavit to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Petitioner named both Medical

University of South Carolina (MUSC) and Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center as

defendants.

On August 12, 2021 the Court of Common Pleas, Honorable Judge Roger

Young, citing ‘lack of jurisdiction” absent any explanation, directed petitioner to file

the complaint in Small Claims court (Appendix B).

On August 26, 2021, as directed, petitioner filed the action in Charleston City

Small Claims Court. The Small Claims court required petitioner to pay ninety dollars

($90.00) filing fee. On October 29, 2021 the Small Claims court, Honorable Martelle

Morrison, dismissed petitioner’s complaint, citing ‘lack of jurisdiction” (Appendix D).

On November 11, 2021 petitioner annealed both decisions to the S.C. Court of

Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the ground of ‘lack of

jurisdiction” (Appendix A).

On December 8, 2021 petitioner filed a Motion to

4

Reinstate (Petition to Rehear the Dismissal) (Appendix F). On March 1, 2022 the

court denied the petition.

On March 18, 2022 petitioner filed a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court

of South Carolina. On June 8, 2022 the court denied the Writ (Appendix C).

s

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

WHERE THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA DENIED REVIEW

OF PETITIONER’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI, IT SANCTIONED A

DEPARTURE BY ITS LOWER COURT FROM THE ACCEPTED AND

USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MANDATED BY S.C.

STATUTORY LAW AS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THIS COURT’S

SUPERVISORY POWERS.

1.

Whether The Court Of Common Pleas Erred In Refusing To File

Petitioner’s Complaint On The Ground Of Lack Of Jurisdiction"!

The South Carolina Tort Claims Act provides as follows:

S.C. Code Ann. §15-78-30(a) provides in part:

“Agency means ... a state-supported governmental

health care facility, school, college, university, or

technical college, which employs the employee

whose act or omission gives rise to a claim under

this chapter.”

Thus, where respondent MUSC is a state-supported university, it is an

agency within the meaning of §15-78-30(a).

S.C. Ann. §15-78-50(a) provides in part:

“Any person who may suffer a loss proximately

caused by a tort of the state, an agency, ... may

file a claim as hereinafter provided.”

Thus, persons described therein may bring a claim against respondent

MUSC, a state agency.

S.C. Ann. §15-78-100(b) provides:

“Jurisdiction for any action brought under this,

chapter is in the circuit court and brought in the

county in which the action or omission occurred.”

Therefore, the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County had jurisdiction

to hear petitioner’s complaint and erred in refusing to accept the complaint.

(o

2.

Whether The South Carolina Court Of Appeals Erred In Refusing To

Hear Petitioner’s Appeal On The Ground Of Lack Of Jurisdiction?

In its Dec. 01, 2021 order dismissing petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction,

the Court of Appeals stated that, “This appeal arises out of an order of the magistrate

court.” — this is incorrect.

Petitioner’s appeal arose out of‘lack of jurisdiction” orders of both the Court of

Common Pleas (Common Pleas) initially and Magistrate Court (Small Claims)

subsequent to that, as clearly noted in the caption and argued in petitioner’s Notice

of Appeal (Appendix E) and Brief and Motion to Reinstate.

It would have been futile to appeal Small Claims’ decision to dismiss for lack

of jurisdiction to Court of Common Pleas, where it was originally filed and dismissed

sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction with directions to file it in Small Claims court.

Therefore, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals naming both courts as

respondents.

But for Common Pleas claiming lack of jurisdiction and directing petitioner to

file his action in Small Claims Court, petitioner would have appealed directly to the

S.C. Court of Appeals.

Where petitioner originally filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas,

Common Pleas departed from state statute and accepted and usual course of judicial

proceedings where it claimed lack of jurisdiction and directed petitioner to file his

claim in Small Claims court — the S.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals

should have held accordingly.

7

Common Pleas knew or should have known that it had jurisdiction to hear an

action where Medical University of South Carolina is a party. Proveaux v. Medical

University of South Carolina. 326 S.C. 28;482 S.E.2d 774 (1997); Jeter v. South

Carolina Dent, of Transportation. 358 S.C. 528 (Ct. App. 2004).

In the instant case Common Pleas denied petitioner the right to petition the

government for redress of grievances by claiming lack of jurisdiction in a case where

it clearly had jurisdiction.

If Common Pleas is allowed to continue to dismiss cases statutorily within its

jurisdiction and misdirect plaintiffs where to file their cases without correction or

consequence, it would discourage citizens from seeking redress in the courts.

The minor effect of Common Pleas action complained of herein is petitioner

having to pay the cost of treatment out of pocket, but the greater affect is to deny

petitioner access to the courts.

3.

Whether The Small Claims Court Unfairly Deprived Appellant Of

His Filing Fee?

Where the Small Claims court subsequently dismissed petitioner’s claim after

requiring him to pay a filing fee, petitioner posits that he was unfairly deprived of his

$90 fifing fee.

Fairness in this regard dictates that, upon being offered the complaint, Small

Claims court should have immediately viewed the Caption for parties. Upon noticing

that the defendants were governmental agencies and, therefore, pursuant to state

law, it lacked jurisdiction of the matter, the court should have declined to accept the

complaint for filing instead of first requiring payment of a filing fee.

Whether the courts acted in concert or individually, their actions, complained

of herein resulted in petitioner being denied access to South Carolina’s courts, in

violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

CONCLUSION

Clearly, the Court of Common Pleas’ dismissal of petitioner’s complaint for lack

of jurisdiction goes against state statute and the S.C. Courts unlawfully denied

petitioner access to their courts.

Based on the above arguments, petitioner asks this Court (1) to grant the

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; (2) order the Court of Common Pleas to accept

petitioner’s complaint for filing; and (3) order the Small Claim Court to refund

petitioner’s ninety dollars ($90.00) filing fee.

Respectfully submitted,

August 3

,2022.

Willie A Key

*

71 Society St., Apt. 501

Charleston, S.C. 29401

(843) 530-0284